Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday June 24, 2006 @07:19AM
from the bank-secrecy-is-a-good-idea-all-year-'round dept.

The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:

Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.

The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.

Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records. They can't even manage to look after their own federal spending, why do they need to look after mine?

> Folks -- if they don't have enough intelligence to invade the right country then I doubt they have enough intelligence to monitor bank records.

One of the sad ironies in all this is that they probably would have seen 911 coming if they didn't have to filter out so many details as the reports of the field officers work their way up the organizational tree.

They are not fools. (Mods if you don't like the truth just comment against it or get a life) The guys who are doing this monitoring have a full plan to monitor all data that can be collected on every person on the earth. I know this because I have read the Requests for Proposals from the various agencies involved. There can be only one logical conclusion of this effort. These guys want to establish a world wide Gestapo or SS. They intend to do so with impunity. They will do just as the NAZI's did, and cover their mafactor status as being "anti-terrorist".

For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.

My US Senator Jeff Sessions has come under serious pressure trying to destroy his career as a US Senator because he spoke up against the Immigration lies that were being spread. The cost he has paid has been very high. In an election he will face the Republican Party Machine trying to destroy his reputation and take away the money from contributors. Supposing you dare contribute a significant amount of money, you may find your business contracts with the government suspended if you have any. You may find your reputation destroyed by the data they developed in this mass spying effort. The senator himself will find every detail of his life made public to try to ruin him.

This is a direct threat to the very existence of a free people and a freely elected government. It makes the President of the United States of America and his team the chief terrorists in the world. It makes without doubt the danger very high. This is why we in the USA live in a continual state of "Terrorist Alerts" and other mechanisms designed to keep us sturred up and always afraid. This paranoid state they have us living in is making the whole world think we are insane. The fact of our sanity being in question because of this is becoming all of the discussion around the world. These people are up to no good in the White House. DO NOT MARK me as part of those who oppose the Republican Party generally. I support and go to meetings. I am a long standing life long Republican. These men in the White House only claim to be Republicans. I know most decent Republicans oppose what is going on.

What for example have they done to Preserve Protect or Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? (Their oath of office) I am a supporter of a strong America and I definitely support the efforts to put down Islamic Radical Terrorism. The efforts of these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America at time of war. Yes their actions are TREASONA

First of all, I do agree about the danger you are warning against, but I also think you are not entirely appreciating that you fell into the trap yourself as well.

For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

If you actually look at the 9/11 attacks as well as to other similar situations, you'll find that the only terrorists you are going to catch at the border are those trying to flee the country afterward, and even that is extremely unlikely. You'd also see that those who planned and executed the attacks were not illegal foreigners. Hence, similar to the situation you pointed out yourself, such actions would have virtually zero effect on terrorism.

All the screaming and arguing about illegal immigrants is really yet another way to divert attention away from what is really happening.

But answer me this: what part of what he describes would be difficult for the USA government to do? Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?

What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.

Ummm, there's paranoia and then there's accusing the President of using "his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means" to extort Senators and Congresspeople to vote his way.

1. Bush has written stacks of signing statements that are even better than vetos, since Congress & Senate don't get to revote on signing statements.

2. The Republicans have a slim (1 person) majority in the Senate, and a semi-slim (12 person) majority in the House. This may be why certain bills that do pass, pass by a slim majority.

3. Not all of Bush's great ideas get turned into law. Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage, Harriet Miers for Supreme Court, Bush's immigration plans, and so on

Maybe some of cluckshot's rambling is factual and relevant, but seriously, it's just riddled with crap.

AFAICT, he's understating the situation. The nazi link, e.g., is not merely by methodological similarity, but also because some very high level nazi's made deals at the time of the surrender...and some of them went to work on for the agnecy that later became the CIA. (Nazism was dead...and they were experienced anti-communists... over time they worked their way up in the ranks.)

A "secret police" is a very dangerous (and necessary?) part of government. They are rather like an immune system that way. If the design isn't perfect, they are likely to attack the organism that produced them. (Well, that analogy is stretect further than it can stand. Unlike an immune system, secret police forces are capable of "owning" thier own resources out of sight of their controllers...and that can cause them to act quite independently, and without much concern for their putative parent body.)

My personal preference would be to have a less powerful "secret police" even at the cost of allowing some "disease organisms" to slip in, but this is clearly a matter of degree. More careful oversight is another important consideration...but who will watch the watchers? Corruption is a historical habit of human organizations.

Is it a good idea to simply let them have the power to do these things and assume they'll never exercise it?

No. It is a fundamental law of human behaviour: All power gets used.

If you grant power to someone that power will eventually be used. History suggests sooner rather than later. Things you'd think would never happen in a million years have a way of being done well ahead of schedule. And any power will be used to the benefit of the people wielding it unless there are obvious negative consequences in doing so. Secret power is absolute power, because it can be used for anything with no consequences to the wielders.

And for anyone still using the "you have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong" line, I would like to point out that that line requires assuming that the organs of the state Never Make Mistakes. Good luck with that.

I used to have Republican tendencies too until I recognized the neocons in office have no financially conservative (read: responsible) goals in mind but are spenders at heart. I'm not democrat either because they are the flip side of the coin and are 98% the same, now I only support Independents who aren't career politicians. Like Jesse Ventura. That guy showed Independents can win.But I agree with you, it's sad how this administration uses 9/11 and "terrah" as the excuse for everything that has nothing

The parent comment brings up some salient points. I unfortunately believe that his/her points only tangentially address the real problems we face now.
Our nation and most importantly our government is showing all of the signs of age, as in biological age. It no longer functions effectively, but that is among the least of our problems, because the intent of Adams and Jefferson was that it would not. However, the problem is that is does not function effectively in representing the body politic. That was never intended. Our government was intended by those who wrote the Constitution ("Oh God, not that pain in the ass document again" as many in the Legislative and Executive branches say) to be inefficient in imposing its will on the populace.
Back to aging, our society and culture seems to have bought into the idea that everything will be fine if only someone ELSE can take care of it for us. We are far too risk-averse, and on our way to proving Ben Franklin's quote about trading liberty for security true in the worst way. It is us, as a people, who bear the burden of responsibility for this. And it can bring us to our collective knees if it does not do us worse.
My family came to this country long ago (about 175 years) and I cannot imagine my Grandparents, to say nothing of my Great-Grandparents, standing by and letting our rights be chivvied away as they are now. But the fact is that we do.
More specifically, in the future we are going to face increasing encroachments on our right to be left alone, because of a fundamental flaw in jurisprudence. We can only expect privacy if it is "reasonable" in the current societal context, and with technology marching on, reasonable privacy is an ever shrinking circle. Could you imagine in the last century that you could not expect privacy in your own back yard. Well now Predator drones are flying overhead, so you cannot. It will go much farther than this.
My bitch about this is done for now. I would only quote from one more free than I:
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their quick brown foxes running over lazy dogs and jumping away to the aid of their party."
If we do not wake up and take the phrase "by the people and for the people" seriously, then we deserve what we get. I can find work anywhere, so what I'll do, if all is lost, is get away from this national and cultural self-destruction. Best of luck to the rest of you.

On another note, the fact that people, in general, have assumed the belief that someone ELSE will take care of things is indicative of deeper, more serious logical faults which allowed the people to believe such a ridiculous thing.

This is not a logical fault. People would take it upon themselves to fix things, to oversee the government, and all that. People do -- retirees and college students do.

But they are the only ones who can take the time. Everyone else is too busy working to have any attention or ener

Another hint: The people that "bad eating habbits" (not Ronald) killed knew about nutrition and made their choice. There was free will (or lack therof) involved. Can you say the same about Osama? Did all the people he killed choose to die? That where the false dichotomy comment comes in, and is on target...

I'm not saying that America doesn't need to wise up and get agressive on nutrition, but lets put the blame where the blame belongs. McDonalds didn't make America fat, poor education about nutrition did

Interesting that you are so outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis that has real consequences for 1/3rd of the U.S. population yet you are quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus. How about taking individual responsibility for our own self defense? Hmmmmmm...

It's OK for the government to abrogate our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties but not to attempt to educate people about the obesity epidemic that is directly causing the deaths of 1 in 5 Americans that die every year? Is that really the way you want to go?

Here's the real secret, many that call themselves "conservatives" are right wing authoritarians who actually believe in a strong centralized Federal police state. The founding fathers who were decentralists would be appalled at this type of thinking. Far from being conservative and respectful of tradition you people are in fact radical authoritarians in the same vein as fascists.

Witnessing the decay of our Democratic Republic in real time is fucking depressing.

It's just that if it had not happened then the US public wouldn't have been so tolerant of their own sons and daughters dieing in countries like Afganistan and Iraq while trying to secure the rest of the worlds oil reserves.

In Afganistan they wanted to build a pipeline that the taliban never would have agreed to. In Iraq, well the largest oil field in the world speaks for itself.

Just look at what was happening to US defense expenditure before 911. It was going down as the majority of the population realised that there was no big bad communist Russia to fight anymore so there was no need for aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

Now we have terrorists, an enemy who can never go bust like Russia did. And if you kill a terrorist, 10 more just spring up their place. It is a war the US can never win. Which obviously suits the people who make from money from war by selling defense equipment to the US govt.

The NSA and CIA let planes crash into the twin towers and that conveniently empty (for redecoration apparantly) wing of the pentagon. They did this as they knew it would result in massive increase in their budgets.

And before you dismiss this as a troll, just think what you might ignore if you were looking at redundancy from somewhere you had worked for 20 years. From a career you enjoyed, possibly with no other hope of employment in the same field. After all, who hires people with a 20 year gap on their CV which they are not allowed to discuss for reasons of national security.

If all I had to do to protect it was look the other way briefly, I might just do it if I had a wife and 3 kids to support.

But herein lies the problem, the people on the other side are more desperate the we are. Most of Iraq has a much lower standard of living than the US, the population is on the edge of starvation, disease is rife and on top of that the country is a war zone where you might just catch a stray bullet or bit of shrapnel and die. Now on top of that only thing your country has of value to trade with (oil) is in the hands of foriegn companies (the only ones with the expertise to extract it) who are allied with the foriegn invaders. Try putting yourself in this position and think of how determined you might be to throw those foriegn invaders out.

But my final point is more disturbing than all of this. We now NEED the CIA and NSA. We need them to stop some super pissed of terrorist obtaining a nuclear device from Pakistan (Definately have nukes unlike Iran) or Iran (Maybe have nukes but definately dont like us) and blowing us up with it. All they have to do is smuggle the nuke onto a plane bound for the US from some third world country.

I don't dismiss it as a troll, but rather as the ravings of a paranoid wingnut.

I'm not going to say that the gp is right, nor that he is wrong. Rather, I'd like to ask you to dismiss his arguments as impossible or at least extremely improbable and provide some reasoning for it, just like the gp made some arguments as to why he might be right and why it is not that unlikely at all that what he says happened.

In short, come with an argument instead of name calling, or live with not being taken seriously.

Being taken seriously by the/. crowd isn't really high on my list anyway.

If you don't come up with anything usefull, then indeed you won't be taken seriously, not just by the slashdot crowd, but by anyone who has some capacity of independent thought.

That said, I am not the slashdot crowd, I am an individual slashdot reader putting up a question to you. Why the fuck are you posting here if you don't want to debate anything to begin with?

Besides, I suspect that I'm not in the minority with my viewpoint. I'm just not afraid to post non-AC.

I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

So, are you capable of independent thought and making an argument or are you just one of the mindless sheep.

I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.

I am a physicist and I consult on national vulnerability, and I can tell you that a terrorist will not come through an airport with any radionuclides. That is patently ridiculous. What is far more likely to happen is that someone with a bunch of money will find someone in Russia with little to no money (who formerly worked for the Strategic Rocket Forces) to provide them with a working (if decrepit) tactical nuke. Then, they would have some shipping company bring the container to New York or Miami and set it off. That's just to let you know about what OUR nightmares are -- and in the future, post about what you know.

They're pulling it off. As measured by $TRILLIONS in profits [google.com] and unlimited power [google.com], killing thousands around the world and leaving our country to rot. How can we possibly deny that they're smart, that they're doing it all on purpose, that it's malice, even evil, that is driving all their actions? Because the truth is too much to admit, especially since we like to believe what we see in the media: the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.

Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?

If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?

We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.

So, out of curiosity, is that worse or better than subsidizing the company so it can artificially price itself into the market to try to steal contracts? You know.... like Airbus and the European Union does?

Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.

in the other the govt buys stuff they don't really need in order to increase demand and indirectly having money go from the govt to the economy

I suspect that the more likely reason is to be able to "redistribute wealth" from the taxpayers to cronies & big campaign contributors. The "it's good for the economy" reason is just a rationalisation to divert peoples' attention from who is benefiting the most from those handouts.

If the people in the government _really_ wanted to help the economy, they'd just

It's not buying jets that you need, that would be fine. You need to do a search [google.com], and read up on all the pork-barrel projects used to funnel money into companies like boeing. For example, congress having the USAF lease 100 767 tankers [pogo.org] from Boeing at a price billions of dollars above what it would have cost to buy them outright, and actually leaving the USAF with less tankers at the end of the day.

Which would be great if American companies like Haliburton didn't maintain shell subsidiaries in places like the Caiman Islands. These subsidiaries are apparently not bound by American law, even though they amount to a post office box whose contents are forwarded to the States. This is how Haliburton got away with dealing with Iran while it was illegal to do so, even selling them centrifuges used in their nuclear project.

In any case, the cozy relationship between the Saudi Royal family and American business and government amounts to bribe of a different type--information and contacts. George Bush Sr. worked for the Saudis while still receiving intelligence briefings, a right that all former presidents have but which has always been waived. Bush Sr. was the first former president to insist on getting them. You can bet that Bush Jr. will be getting them too--the President who walked hand in hand with Prince Bandar. And now those intelligence reports will include the banking information of competing companies. The money to be made here makes simple bribes miniscule by comparison. Not even Airbus is in the position to offer the kind of money that can be made by investing a billion dollars in a small company that is about to win a massive government contract.

Which means that even after Bush is out of office, he will still have his hand in the federal pie, and will be able to sell a piece of that pie to the highest bidder. Not bad for a spoiled dilletante with no talent for business. We're stuck with the bastard till the day he dies.

The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.

The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.
- Lobo (10944)

I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.

I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:

"On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
- So long, and thanks for all the fish - Douglas Adams

What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?

Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- Eugene Victor Debs

We need publicly financed elections and condorcet voting.Frankly, that's the only way we're going to get third parties worth voting for. Frankly, the Libertarians scare me. The Constitution Party should scare the hell out of anybody. I'm ideologically aligned with the Green party, but they strike me as a bunch of disorganized hippies who wouldn't know what to do with the country if we turned it over to them.

Actually having a significant number of people governing would make third parties far more effecti

The fundamental problem doesn't lie with the voters, it lies with the system. Our system is at equilibrium with two parties. When a third party grows in popularity, it acts as a "spoiler" against one of the two established parties (predominantly against the party that most closely matches that third-parties views, in fact). After a bit of turmoil, everything settles back down again with two parties.

What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral.

I do that at the state and local level. At the Felderal level it's a little too much like throwing my vote away for my taste. I usually just vote against the incumbant unless they've done something to give me a warm fuzzy. It's still throwing your vote away (98% of the time the incumbant will win) and if they lose because of my vote the Senate is losing all that experience and possibly seats on comittees will have to change, but I don't think any one person should remain too long in the corrupting influence of Congresss anyway. If I had my way, 1 or 2 terms would be the limit.

Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.

No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.

There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.

Horseshit. Most libertarians (small 'l') aren't extremists or fanatics; they simply want the smallest, least powerful government possible because the alternative will almost certainly lead to de facto or actual dictatorship. In other words, they're looking for a government that fears the peop

Government is always inefficient when doing things private companies have been doing better for years

Government is always inefficient in a working republic or representative democracy, it is that way by design and for good reasons. I could explain it here, but it would be a bit lengthy. Instead of doing that, I challange you to think about why this is and why this is in fact a very good thing.

"The Framers" wanted it to be hard/complicated/inefficient to enact legislation so as to put a check on the Mob mentality. You know, like suddenly removing civil liberties and increasing presidential powers.

Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?

In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.

Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will

Uhm, because they are often specifically forbidden to. That's the real prize of 9/11 for law enforcement - they HATE transparency and accountability, all this "national security" stuff pretty much means that they don't have to be bothered with all that hippie liberal nonsense.

[blockquote] Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)?[/blockquote]

Given the Bush administration's behavior regarding these sorts of activities, likely the companies are threatened with federal prosecution if they reveal the attempt because it would the "terrorists" hints about how we're trying to track them down. It's more than convenient that these hints to the "terrorists" are also hints to the public that the White House is trampling our civil rights and evading oversight YET AGAIN.

"Do your reasearch and don't believe everything you read in the papers. This program DID have congretional oversight and is perfectly leagal as a practical extention of the Patriot Act."

Show me the article that verifies this claim. The interview I heard yesterday with Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levy mentioned nothing of the sort. This program, like a startling number of Bush's post 9/11 "anti terrorist" intelligence initiatives, has NO court oversight. Levy described a situation in which SWIFT agents and "an outside auditing firm" could monitor database searches in real time and could halt the search if they felt it was suspect or needed further justification from the government. That's it. If your name is on a list of suspected terrorist / collaborators, correctly or incorrectly, the the White House has given itself the privledge of sifting through your financial data. And your phone calls. And god knows what else we don't know about. And it all happens without the courts being aware.

Who puts a stop to programs like this if it's being abused? The "gang of 8" senators that had been informed about the domestic wiretapping program have admitted that the reports they get about that program don't go into any great detail. Are we just supposed to trust the Bush White House to say, "Gee, we've sepped over the line here, please shut us down?" These are the same people that selectively chose intellegence reports that supported their desire to invade Iraq. Once they got their, they retroactively changes their justifications for being there and then capped it all by saying "Well, is it a bad thing that Sahdam is gone? Would you prefer he be in power?"

This is a democracy with explicit checks and ballances between the three branches of government setup to prevent precisely what is occuring. Why should we trust him to be the final arbitar of what programs are legal and which would be overstepping his bounds within the law when he and his team have shown such a knack for the creative justification of every questionable looking program they've enacted that has come to light?

So long as you ignore the Constitution, that is. But who really gives a shit about that stupid piece of paper anymore? After all, the people who wrote it were a bunch of fucking barbarians who didn't even have, like, TV!

Also, who the fuck cares if the government is looking at Joe Sixpack's bank info?

Perhaps Joe Sixpack - y'know, the guy the government supposedly works FOR. In case you've forgotten, the government, along with our elected repr

So the US found a quick way to access international payment flows. I wonder about their "successes", which sound a lot like the "take our word for it, we know Saddam has chemical weapons".
Also SWIFT, a seemingly international organization, has in fact confirmed it is controlled by the US by agreeing to pass all its data to the US. I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

I can assure you that that will not happen. I work for an Aussie bank and SWIFT is very tightly integrated into all our systems and the systems of our clients. Even if we wanted to leave we couldn't. I'm not even sure if there is a decent, viable alternative.

I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

I'm more wondering what the honchos of UBS and Credit Suisse (who have representatives in the board of SWIFT) where thinking while this little scheme was going along.

You see, breeching customer confidentiality [wikipedia.org] is protected by federal law in Switzerland and violating this penal code may draw jail time.

That doesn't mean that Swiss banks never provide foreign authorities with customer data, but such authorities must show that there's an ongoing investigation about a crime, or a felony. That's what actually pisses off a lot of foreign governments with stringent fiscal policies, since tax evasion is not a felony in Switzerland and is thus protected under the bank secrecy act.

If wholesale supplying of customer data to the US authorities is not a breech of this code, I don't know what is.

Mind you, that has nothing to do with the infamous Swiss number accounts so much beloved by bad authors. There are no anonymous bank accounts anymore in Switzerland and a numbered account only guarantees that your true identity is coded within the bank and only a few very high honchos know the true identity of the account owner.

Of course Credit Suisse (CSFB) as well as UBS are major players in the US' financial markets and they wouldn't want to piss the US authorities off; now would they?

SWIFT is also HQ'd in Belgium, and the Belgies do not like being pushed around by bigger countries (legacy of being piggie in the middle for 2 world wars and several european ones). SWIFT will find itself under investigation in Belgium for this too (which could be fun if they fight a warrant to protect the US, the Belgian police are basically a full military outfit run by the judiciary).Depends on how corrupt the current Belgian legislature is.

It's what he did with them that remains hard to hammer out, and that's what he was spending so much time and energy trying to hide from everyone, despite signing an agreement allowing full inspection.

Just a wild suggestion... Maybe he actually destroyed them?

He didn't want a war because he knew he'd end up dead.. as will hopefully soon happen. Actually destroying these weapons, which he had no realistic prospect of using without instant obliteration now he was no longer a US ally against Iran, would certainly have been in his best interests.

But I do not dispute his desire and willingness to make and use them.. nor his future intention to do so either! Just his practical ability.

PS: The '500' mustard and sarin shells (disclosed in 1999 [un.org], only wight ring prats call it recent, although the real figure is more like 650+) should be set against 50,000+ which the UN accepts were destroyed..

I always love that response: "We didn't find WMD's? Well then, he must have moved them." That's the perfect bulletproof argument. You can use it for unicorns too: "We haven't seen any? Well then, they must be hiding."

What they found were a bunch of old chemical shells that pre-dated the first Gulf War. Whoopy-do. That was *NOT* the WMD's that Bush and Co. were arguing about in the build-up to this war.

They didn't take us into this war with "Saddam might still have a scattering of chemical shells from the 1980's that probably don't even work anymore", they took us in with "Saddam has an active chemical, biological, and nuclear program right NOW (that is actively seeking to buy uranium from Niger, has mobile chemical weap

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Here's a quote from David Kay on the topic: "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."

In other words, these finds do not vindicate the president---which is probably why he didn't make a big deal about them.

Now, I agree with you the CNN should have covered it. The Los Angeles Times also appears not to have covered it. But your criticism of the entire "liberal media" is not realistic: NPR, CBS, MSNBC, and the New York Times all covered it. I could look for more, but what's the point?

Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism,

This is more than a little revisionist as Saddam was a good ally of ours. There was no terrorist activity in Iraq until after we invaded.

cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad,

bs

and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

You may support the idea of punishing the parents for the crimes of the children but I do not. I think that his actions in compensating the victims of Israel's terrorist actions was honourable. I wish that there were more people that would stand up for the people against the state sponsored terrorists.

To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders,

Is that somehow different from us lobbing cruise missiles at him? You really do have some issues.

trying to annex Kuwait,

And when he asked if he could the US said 'we have no interest in that area'.... Maybe if he had been told 'NO' by his main ally he would not have done it..

Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil,"

This may be a tricky one for you but question number one - What political system was in place in Iraq in 1990? I'll give you a clue. they had just had an election. Yeah, they could only choose people that Saddam said were good enough but now they can only choose people that GW says are good enough, do you really think that the Iraqi people see that as different?

That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

Your absurd rant went right off course at the end:D After Hitler declared war on the US it is understandable that the US defended itself by joining the allies when they invaded Germany. It is true that the US was the third largest force and therefore a main part in the invasion of Germany. That is a little different from attacking one of your main allies. We all knew that Saddam no longer had WMD and the intelligence forces made that fact clear.

The US did turn up late in WWII with the beer and pizza but no one holds it against them because they were welcome along, but keep it in context. The only one there that was ultruistic was Britain as they declared war on Germany because what Germany was doing was wrong. Russia was the main force (they had also been attacked by Germany like the US) that went, Britain was the second force and yes the US did turn up for the party. Read the facts and don't learn history from Hollywood. Russia was the only one that did not avoid the concentration camps as we all knew the logistical problems that would be caused when we arrived at the gates. That is why the German officers had all left without being captured as it was days before we went back to the camps.

The only one there that was ultruistic was Britain as they declared war on Germany because what Germany was doing was wrong.

No, they set themselves up for a war with Germany because Germany challenged their failing hegemony. They refused to recognize the fucking writing on the wall, that the British Empire was shit decaying in the summer sun...until the point was driven home to them via tank, plane and sub. There was nothing whatsoever altruistic about Britain's stand against a European challenger, one t

Why bother watching Fox? Better perhaps to take advantage of the BBC's reporting. Take a moment and any of their coverage. It's hard not to notice the actual facts of chemical weapon use. Which, of course, rather requires the existence of the same.

Look at the YEAR in which they were used.

If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.

No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.

And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.

Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism, as is found in Iran.

Dude, Iraq fought Iran.

Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.

There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.

So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.

That sort of retrograde, destabilizing influence on the entire middle east certainly does impact oil flow (for the entire world, in case you're not paying attention), and allowing it to thrive is unacceptable on a lot of levels, not just as it relates to oil.

If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.

Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.

And before you start mentioning Saddam as some sort of not-so-bad alternative to the extremist jihaddi types, remember that he was busy shipping (along with press releases!) cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.

Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".

To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders, trying to annex Kuwait, and so on.

Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?

You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.

"For oil" is a tidy bit of sophistry, though, that must feel convenient.

I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.

But the real issue with the oil is that it lies in a place where its value is being sought by medieval-minded theocratic crazies that use that single source of revenue to keep places like Iran running backwards from history.

And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.

So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.

Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil," but not in the way you so cravenly describe.

Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".

That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

I sympathize completely with your view on this, but I can't help pointing out the irony in your post. Invading the privacy of non-U.S. citizens isn't even an issue here. So what you say, from a (U.S.) legal standpoint (and, sorry to confirm your suspicions, the point of view of much of the citizenry), is exactly backwards. We're NOT supposed to do this to ourselves, but are quite free to do it to anybody else.

On the other hand, I hardly think this makes us unique. Stop for a second to ask yourself if the British or the French intelligence services would have any qualms about examining the financial records of American citizens (or each others' citizens). Laughable. Not even an issue. It's only makes news here because we have an article in our Constitution that theoretically protects us from our unjustified snooping, and Americans keep getting caught in the dragnet. Do Europeans have similar articles? I'm sorry to say I don't know, but I've been told they do not.

Privacy is controlled on a national level here in yrp, with the EU 'human Rights' legislation as a sort of umbrella over that. Levels of legal protection vary and so do levels of compliance/enforcement. But in Theory every countries Spook squad looks harder at foreign threats than at domestic ones. In Practice the politicians and the spooks are totally paranoid about domestic threats to their power and spend huge resources spying on their own citizens (and I think the US is going the same way, the Homeland Security BrownHats are now the third largest US gvt. department.)

The advantage the US has is it's constitution, which is something I admire a lot. I think it is interesting that your administration is trying to change it (gay marriage). Is this because they want to get people into the 'habit' of changing it in response to perceived 'threats to the American Way(tm)'; so that it can then be changed for 'the war on terror' (think more spooks with more powers, and probably stuff to buy off corporations).

The beauty of your constitution (apart from being drafted on hemp paper:-) is that it is short and to-the-point. They tried to get a 'constitution' passed here, hungreds of pages of waffle designed to promote the intrests of beaurocrats. It was so bad that even the French voters rejected it. Personally I will never vote in favour of any constitution longer than 2 A4 pages of 12pt type. And even then only if it takes power -from- the state, as much as giving power -to- it.

The war started in September of 1939. We joined in on December 7, 1941. That is 27 months of no fighting. The war ended in September, 1945. So 45 months of fighting. That's hardly "The last year of the war". We played a non-trivial role in the war and we suffered many losses. We don't claim all of the credit, I don't know of any book that says that.

The point is, we did help and we did join in. We could only hope you would do the same when it's time for us [CONNECTION TERMINATED]

Just passing along this comment I saw on Instapundit: [instapundit.com]What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's. What we essentially had on file was the holdings for almost all our clients and the clearance data for these transactions dating back for years. We had to keep all this on file to satisfy all the governmental regulations on taxations, etc.

No it works this way: An individual tells his bank to send data to another account cross-border. The bank uses Swift messages to transmit the payment order to the other bank. The data includes account details, name etc.
So why it is not used by individuals, it often concerns transactions (payments, securities) by individuals.

After identifying a suspect, Levey said, "you can do a search, and you can determine whom he sent money to, and who sent money to him."

"The way the SWIFT data works, you would have all kinds of concrete information -- addresses, phone numbers, real names, account numbers, a lot of stuff we can really work with, the kind of actionable information that government officials can really follow up on," Levey said.

Doesn't sound like purely institution-related data. And this from the "undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence," whatever the hell that is.

If you follow the links in the Instapundit posting you get to this description [scsuscholars.com] of the SWIFT system.

A SWIFT consists of a one-page document containing the name and code of the originating bank, the date and time, the address and code of the receiving bank, the name and internal code of the officer initiating the transmission, the names and numbers of the accounts involved in the transfer, a description of the asset being transferred, the MT category of the transmission, and acceptable, standardized phrases as described above.

What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's.

WAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's hysterical. Absolutely hysterical It's amazing just how far some people can warp their perception of reality when they so desperately need to perceive reality as supporting some political position.

In related news, the also recently exposed federal phone wiretapping program is never used for individuals. Those wiretaps are used for the recording of audio communications between phone companies, and logging the associated source and destination phone numbers records on each voice communication.

If someone argues that the current federal program is legal and that it is a a good and acceptable activitity in trying to persue terrorists... well that is a perfectly rational arguement with which one can argue the factual truth or falsity of the claim that it is a legal, and with which one can reasonably agree or dissagree with the oppinion of it being good and acceptable.

However when someone tries to argue that this new program is only about companies and banks, and tries to suggest that it has no impact or relevance on individuals... well that is just plain DELUSIONAL reasoning.

Setting aside all of the civil liberties / constitutinal powers arguements, when will access to all of this information become too tempting for the likes of Karl Rove et al keep their hands off?

Ooops too late...actually they crossed the line in a petty way once (w/ Plame) which was just plain stupid. Being ones to learn from their mistakes (unlike the sheep on the other side of the aisle), further use dubiosly collected information for political gain will be much more subtle.

"You can't type in a random name of someone" and search his data, said one intelligence official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The program only works for names already within the intelligence system that were collected elsewhere and are identified as being part of an open investigation."

And we know from their illegal phone tapping practices, bloated do-not-fly lists etc, etc, that by now they've collected the names of pretty much every other American (not to mention nearly all other humans; remember, this is an international system; very heavily used by European banks, for one), and that with six degrees of separation, they all have enough ties to be part of the open investigations.

What isn't mentioned at all in this Washington Post article, which the New York Times [nytimes.com] does mention, are such snippets as:

Several people familiar with the Swift program said they believed that they were exploiting a "gray area" in the law

"There was always concern about this program," a former official said.

"At first, they got everything -- the entire Swift database," one person close to the operation said.

Swift executives became increasingly worried about their secret involvement with the American government, the officials said. By 2003, the cooperative's officials were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.
"How long can this go on?" a Swift executive asked, according to the official.
Even some American officials began to question the open-ended arrangement. "I thought there was a limited shelf life and that this was going to go away," the former senior official said.

Read the entire New York Times article for more. Chilling.

Given the impact this has on Europeans involved in international transfers as well, if you're European, have you already contacted your bank to urge them to use their influence with SWIFT to make this stop?! There's never much to be done when there's the need to call or write congress critters, but with European privacy laws actually being worth something (in theory), here's a chance to voice very strong displeasure and make this stop!

It would be greatly appreciated by the Billions of us that don't live there if you Americans would do something about your current government.

America increasingly represents the antithesis of 'freedom' and personal liberty especially for those in other countries. They are innovators in the strategic reduction of civil rights, at home and elsewhere. Freedom is not a brand, it's a right and you don't have to be American to have it FFS.

The senator [Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said he was particularly troubled that the administration had expanded its Congressional briefings on the financial tracking program in recent weeks after having learned that The New York Times was making inquiries.

"Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?" the senator asked. "That's a big, important point."

Specter gets right down to the essentials.

The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"

Does it fail to surprise anyone else that CNN and other major media (I mean, 'news') outlets aren't reporting on this? Then again, they're so busy reporting on Kidman and Urban's desires for a normal wedding, Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance rival dying, and Reese Witherspoon suing someone over a false pregnancy story (all on CNN.com). Who has time for this kind of news when there's all that out there! Such decisions!

The news program All Things Considered interviewed the undersecretary responsible for the program yesterday (6/24/06). The interviewer didn't really pull any punches and the answers were pretty interesting. I highly recommend going to NPR's web site and listening to it.

When asked what layers of security were in place to prevent misuse, the reply was that in order to perform a search, the analyst had to show that the individual or group being queried had been identified as having a potential terrorism link. That request had to be vetted by a supervisor, then by a representative from SWIFT. Then, when the query is performed, if no evidence is found, then the information is discarded at the analyst's level. A government auditing team reviews the information that is gleaned and a third party auditing team (from Booz Allen) audits the government.

The undersecretary said that they did remove an analyst earlier this year for abusing the system. The auditing system caught him.

The undersecretary also said that about 10% of the searches performed provided evidence of links to terrorist organizations. That, he said, was a very high rate compared to other intelligence methods.

For me, personally, if that's the way that the government is using the SWIFT database, I don't have a problem with it. If the queries are targeted, as opposed to a broad sweep, it strikes me as a legitimate use of an intelligence asset.

Interestingly enough, the general attitude of the security and privacy experts that ATC interviewed was fairly positive about the program.

You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.

Do something like what? Vote them out? We try that every four years but still end up with Politicians (capitalized because it's a distinct subclass of humanity) in power and after the 24-hour warranty runs out, they all turn into the same evil, self-serving, corrupt muck as the rest of their kind. Overthrow them by force of arms? We did that a couple hundred years ago and it worked well until the very intelligent and respectable gentlemen who created our nation stepped down and the Politicians took over. We

Is when Bush does something like this, people come out of the woodwork to explain how the intentions are good.

It doesn't matter if the administration's intentions are good. The point is we have a court system and separation of powers for a reason. And it is the law of the land.

No matter how good one's intentions are, if they violate this (by not getting actual subpoenas), they're comminting a grave crime, and creating a situation where one branch (in this case the one headed by one man) can begin to take control of the actions of the entire government.

It's a constitutional issue. And this is another egregious violation of it. This is beyond absurdity now. We the people created this government, we should have to put up with it not following the restrictions we set down upon it. These people should be ejected from office.

I can echo that. I live in Denmark and almost every international transfer that Danes perform, apart from credit card purchases, use the SWIFT system. Western Union and similar companies have very little market share, mostly because they're quite expensive compared to using SWIFT. For example, I recently transferred $100 to one of my US bank accounts using SWIFT to cover the account charges. I think the smallest SWIFT I ever did was £30 to the UK for some miscellaneous fees.

So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down.

We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.

"C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"

And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.

They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.

You're right, I *do* suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Everything the man has done from the day he stepped into office has managed to make my life and my country worse.Nor does it help that his defenders gleefully try to malign anyone who criticizes this train wreck of an administration, calling them anti-Americans, armchair terrorists, and worse. They also try to prove our insanity by saying that (in the case of "Dr. Sanity") we blame Bush for acts of God, like Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami. If